I havent used canon 180mm but have used Sigma 180mm of my friend for couple of days. I found it too bulky and very difficult to frame in field. If I add 270EX on top of it, I cant hand hold it for more than a minute. Using tripod is not always an option, especially with butterflies and dragon flies. 100mm F2.8L is very useful in the field, when I have to get down on the ground, or have to track moving insects. I find IS is useful too sometimes. As others stated, it makes framing easier too...

Logged

Naveena8FPS, Macro F2.8 L, couple of more lenses, small flash MKI and a customised flash bracket.

I havent used canon 180mm but have used Sigma 180mm of my friend for couple of days. I found it too bulky and very difficult to frame in field. If I add 270EX on top of it, I cant hand hold it for more than a minute. Using tripod is not always an option, especially with butterflies and dragon flies. 100mm F2.8L is very useful in the field, when I have to get down on the ground, or have to track moving insects. I find IS is useful too sometimes. As others stated, it makes framing easier too...

That's the primary problem with 180mm. It's too big that's why I recommended it only if you're using tripod almost all the time. 100mm 2.8L IS is the best option most of the time but the non-IS is still sufficient for 70% of your photos.

I like macro prhotography and until now I have some nice photos of flowers and insects that move slowly (spiders) using an 60mm canon efs macro lense. I want to go full frame so I would like to hear your suggestions. Is it worth going for the 100mm IS which is the double price from the non IS? I am also considering the 180mm but although is an L lense is not IS. Do I need IS in order to take a moving subject (i.e. a bee, a flower under wind) without a tripod with these magnifications. If so why the 180 lense is not IS and is the most expensive? Also what about image quality? Please I would love to hear the expert advise.Thank you

I assume you know that the 60 is only useable on APS-C cameras, not full frame.

The 180 gives you more working distance compared to the 100 or 60. This can be important. I also think the 180 blows out the background nicer than the 100 IS or the 60 EF-S.

The 180 also takes extenders.

IS does not help remove object motion, so those moving insects or moving flowers will still be blurry with IS. I think the only real "on the fly" solution is multiple exposures and hoping that one or two are good. Or, go out on calm days.

If size/weight is a concern, the 180 is bigger and heavier than the other two. The images from the 180 seem to have something that is lacking in the 100 IS... but you would need to try both to see for yourself.

The 100 IS does not come with a tripod collar- it is an extra cost option, and the Canon OEM part isn't cheap.

That's the primary problem with 180mm. It's too big that's why I recommended it only if you're using tripod almost all the time. 100mm 2.8L IS is the best option most of the time but the non-IS is still sufficient for 70% of your photos.

That's why I love my 150mm Sigma. Fast and still light enough to be hand hold for quite some time. Having OS (aka IS) and also being able to mount converters on it is then just the icing on the cake. I would really recommend everybody to have a real close look at that one when deciding which macro lens one should buy.

How Good is the 180 for portraits, out door long shots. I can get a stellar oen for under a grad so just don't want a MEH lens if its horrid at AF, i guess say say it slow like the 50 1.8 mk II but if it gets focus will it be Tack sharp if all other factors are there (light, relatively static subject, LIGHT).

I highly suggested IS for doing hand held macro photography. The hybrid system in the 100mm 2.8L is great and the lens is razor sharp. I have never regretted buying that lens. I now have the 70-200 2.8l II and use that more but if I want to do anything near the 100mm range and any macro I strongly prefer the 100mm 2.8L over that big ass thing. If you absolutely cannot find a way to get the extra $400 for the IS, weather sealing and slightly better build quality then the non L 100 will give great pictures too but you might find yourself asking..what if? You wont regret buying the 100 L IS if you do and you will never ask what if because now you have greatness in your hands!

I havent used canon 180mm but have used Sigma 180mm of my friend for couple of days. I found it too bulky and very difficult to frame in field. If I add 270EX on top of it, I cant hand hold it for more than a minute. Using tripod is not always an option, especially with butterflies and dragon flies. 100mm F2.8L is very useful in the field, when I have to get down on the ground, or have to track moving insects. I find IS is useful too sometimes. As others stated, it makes framing easier too...

Is the Sigma you tried the new f/2.8 with image stabilization? I've not seen one, let alone tried one or its predecessor (I own the 100L IS), but it recently greatly impressed the lenstip reviewer (who earlier raved about the 100L - as does just about everyone):

Another option I'd consider -depending how close you really need to get- is the TS 90mm. Not officially a macro lens but it's on my short list of future purchases as both a portrait and "macro" lens. Minimum distance is 0.5m and that's without any macro extender. The great thing is that in addition to that you can adjust the focal plane which is a handy thing in macro photography I suppose.

If you do a lot of macro work, then the 180L would make sense. It offers a longer working distance, which is helpful in a lot of instances. If you do some macro work and would like to use it for portraiture, then a 100mm makes sense. The IS offers you more flexibility when you try to handhold it, but is not necessary. If you are happy with the ef-s 60 on the crop, then the 100 will perform similarly on FF. If you have a 70-200L II, then the 100L makes less sense because both perform similarly for portaits at 100mm.

+1 ... and if you get the 100L buy the Kenko 1.4x tc which works nicely with it and gives you more working distance while keeping it a real lens that can focus to infinity unlike macro extension tubes (though these can be useful, too). Just don't expect the IS on the 100L to make any difference while shooting handheld near macro 1:1 magnification, a common fallacy (and Canon marketing will make sure to imply otherwise...).

I've used both the 100 USM and 100L 2.8. The cheaper 100 USM got me some fantastic photos (but shooting anything in a breeze is a good recipe for frustration). I had an issue with build quality- the rear element came loose - did not affect IQ for me but did lower resale value. Apparently this happens occasionally to this lens.

I upgraded to the 100L. I think the biggest difference is if you are using it for non-macro photography (e.g. portraits). Having the focus limiter is hugely helpful for AF, and the IS is pretty nice.

If you're using it primarily for macro- it's a hard choice. Getting the 100 USM plus some accessories like a monopod or tripod, a flash bracket and flash with the cost difference will probably make a bigger difference for your photos than would the lens upgrade to the 100L. If you think you'll use this at all for non-macro work, the 100L is a fantastic all-around lens.

100 f/2.8 L IS a remarkable Lens, sharp, fast focus on when you limit it, I recently used the D800 + Nikkor 105 VR Macro Lens, NO comparison, where the Nikon Lens was almost impossible to focus on Auto, the Canon 100 f/2.8 L IS on either the 5DMK3 or the 1Dx was simply superb, I've used this Lens now on the 5DMK2, 1DMK IV, 5DMK3 & 1Dx, works amazingly well on all these Cameras, if I had to choose a set up, it's likely the 1DMK IV due to 1.3 crop, allows me to get even closer than the FF allows.